experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form on
their own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it contains
inconsistencies in a number of areas:
1- By using a mechanism called a "cold trap,"
Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon
as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in
the environment in which the amino acids were formed would
immediately have destroyed these molecules.
Doubtless, this kind of conscious
isolation mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth.
Without such a mechanism, even if one amino acid were obtained,
it would immediately have been destroyed. The chemist Richard
Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that "Actually,
without this trap, the chemical products, would have been
destroyed by the energy source."254 And,
sure enough, in his previous experiments, Miller had been
unable to make even one single amino acid using the same materials
without the cold trap mechanism.
2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted
to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s,
scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide
should have been used in this artificial environment instead
of methane and ammonia.
So why did Miller insist on these gases? The
answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize
any amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article
published in Discover magazine:
Miller and Urey imitated
the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane
and ammonia. ...However in the latest studies, it has been
understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and
that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore,
the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed
mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2)
and water vapour (H2O). However these are not
as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production
of organic molecules.255
The artificial atmosphere
created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not
the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere
The American scientists J.
P. Ferris and C. T. Chen repeated Miller's experiment with
an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide,
hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapor, and were unable to obtain
even a single amino acid molecule.256
3- Another important point
that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there
was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere
at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This
fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized
iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years
There are other findings showing that the amount
of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time was much higher than
originally claimed by evolutionists. Studies also show that
the amount of ultraviolet radiation to which the earth was
then exposed was 10,000 times more than evolutionists' estimates.
This intense radiation would unavoidably have freed oxygen
by decomposing the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This situation completely negates Miller's experiment,
in which oxygen was completely neglected. If oxygen had been
used in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into
carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia into nitrogen and water.
On the other hand, in an environment where there was no oxygen,
there would be no ozone layer either; therefore, the amino
acids would have immediately been destroyed, since they would
have been exposed to the most intense ultraviolet rays without
the protection of the ozone layer. In other words, with or
without oxygen in the primordial world, the result would have
been a deadly environment for the amino acids.
4- At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic
acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental
to the structure and function of living things. If the amino
acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same
environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation
into different compounds through chemical reactions would
have been unavoidable.
Moreover, Miller's experiment
also produced right-handed amino acids.258
The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even
within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot
function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude,
the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's
experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium
took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidizing
the useful molecules obtained.
| Today, Miller too accepts that his
1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin
All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's
experiment cannot claim to have proved that living things
formed by chance under primordial earth-like conditions. The
whole experiment is nothing more than a deliberate and controlled
laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. The amount
and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally
determined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount of
energy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too
little, but arranged precisely to enable the necessary reactions
to occur. The experimental apparatus was isolated, so that
it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive,
or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino
acids. No elements, minerals or compounds that were likely
to have been present on the primordial earth, but which would
have changed the course of the reactions, were included in
the experiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation
of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of these
destructive elements. Even under such ideal laboratory conditions,
it was impossible for the amino acids produced to survive
and avoid destruction without the "cold trap" mechanism.
In fact, by his experiment, Miller destroyed
evolution's claim that "life emerged as the result of unconscious
coincidences." That is because, if the experiment proves anything,
it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled
laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically
designed by conscious intervention.
Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded
even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue
of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth,
the following statements appear in an article titled "Life's
Geologist now think
that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon
dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than
those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's
atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules
such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical
changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds,
or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws
up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a
problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you
make polymers? That's not so easy."259
As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted
that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the
origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic,
in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth," the
following comments appear:
Many scientists now suspect that
the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first
supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide
and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That's bad news for
chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen,
they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent
of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool
of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging
from such a diluted soup.260
In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor any
other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the
question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research
that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to
emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created.
The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality
is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific.
Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller
experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following
confession on this subject:
All of us who study
the origin of life find that the more we look into
it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.
We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved
from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity
is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.261
B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life,
C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
255 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik
(Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
256 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, "Photochemistry
of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the
Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth," Journal of American
Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
257 "New Evidence on Evolution of Early
Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
258 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane
T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd
ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
259 "Life's Crucible," Earth, February
1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
260 "The Rise of Life on Earth," National
Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
261 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species
Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.